ISSN 2177-6784

Sistema Penal
& Violncia
Revista Eletrnica da Faculdade de Direito
Programa de Ps-Graduao em Cincias Criminais
Pontifcia Universidade Catlica do Rio Grande do Sul PUCRS

Porto Alegre Volume 6 Nmero 1 p. 31-42 janeiro-junho 2014

Active justice:
Restorative justice processes as fertile ground
for exercising citizenship
Justia ativa:
Processos de justia restaurativa como campo frtil
para o exerccio da cidadania

Brunilda Pali

Dossi
JUSTIA RESTAURATIVA
Editor-Chefe
Jos Carlos Moreira da Silva Filho
Organizao de
Daniel Achutti
Jos Carlos Moreira da Silva Filho

A matria publicada neste peridico licenciada sob forma de uma

Licena Creative Commons - Atribuio 4.0 Internacional.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
 Justia Restaurativa
Restorative Justice

Active justice:
Restorative justice processes as fertile ground
for exercising citizenship
Justia ativa:
Processos de justia restaurativa como campo frtil
para o exerccio da cidadania

Brunilda Palia

Abstract
This paper focuses mainly on the relation of the concept of citizenship with restorative justice, especially as
viewed and enacted in the four intercultural settings of the ALTERNATIVE project. The paper is structured
in four main parts. Part one focuses on the concept of participatory citizenship in relation to crime and
conflict. Part two explicates and makes clear the claim of the discourse of restorative justice to the concept
of participatory citizenship and democracy. Part three mentions some of the challenges in the restorative
justice discourse that complicate its relationship to participatory citizenship. Part four states some of the
ways the ALTERNATIVE project tries to tackle some of these challenges. The paper argues that if we view
restorative processes as being essentially about talking together and acting together, the essential element
of active participation makes restorative justice clearly a manifestation of political action. Nevertheless,
restorative justice must not only be limited to being discursive and reflective, but must forge alliances with
the governmental and non-governmental agencies, and create webs of accountability that lead to concrete
social and political actions which fight injustices of all kinds.
Keywords: Active citizenship. Restorative justice. Democracy. Social justice.

Resumo
Este artigo foca-se principalmente na relao entre o conceito de cidadania e o de justia restaurativa,
especialmente como vista e representada nas quatro configuraes interculturais do projeto ALTERNATIVA.
A primeira parte foca-se no conceito de cidadania participativa relacionada ao crime e ao conflito. A segunda
parte explica e deixa clara a demanda por um discurso da justia restaurativa por parte do conceito de
cidadania participativa e de democracia. A parte trs menciona alguns dos desafios presentes no discurso
da justia restaurativa que complicam a sua relao com a cidadania participativa. A parte quatro apresenta
alguns dos meios pelos quais o projeto ALTERNATIVA tenta cuidar desses desafios. O artigo argumenta
que se vermos o processo restaurativo como sendo essencialmente sobre conversar e agir juntos, o elemento
essencial da participao ativa faz da justia restaurativa claramente uma manifestao de ao poltica. No
entanto, a justia restaurativa deve ser no somente limitada a ser discursiva e reflexiva, mas deve forjar
alianas com agncias governamentais e no governamentais, e criar redes de responsabilizao que levem
a aes sociais e polticas concretas que combatam as injustias de todos os tipos.
Palavras-chave: Cidanania ativa. Justia restaurativa. Democracia. Justia Social.

a
Leuven Institute of Criminology (LINC), Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Belgium. <Brunilda.Pali@law.kuleuven.be>.

Sistema Penal & Violncia, Porto Alegre, v. 6, n. 1, p. 31-42, jan.-jun. 2014 32

Active justice Pali, B.

Introduction
The reflections in this paper are based on the conceptual work undertaken during the first year of
ALTERNATIVE1, a project coordinated by KU Leuven. The overall objective of the project is to provide an
alternative and deepened understanding of justice and security based on empirical evidence of how to handle
conflicts within intercultural contexts, mainly through the active participation of citizens. The project focuses
conceptually on four main intertwined relationships, one is the relationship of discourses of justice and
security, second is the relationship of restorative justice and interculturality, third is the relationship of action
research and theory, and fourth is the relationship of restorative justice and active participation, citizenship
and democracy.
This paper will focus mainly on the relation of the concept of citizenship with restorative justice,
especially as viewed and enacted in the four intercultural settings of the ALTERNATIVE project2. The paper
is structured in four main parts. In part one I will focus on the concept of participatory citizenship in relation to
crime and conflict. In part two I will explicate and make clear the claim of the discourse of restorative justice
to the concept of participatory citizenship and democracy. In part three I will mention some of the challenges
in the restorative justice discourse that complicate its relationship to participatory citizenship. In part four I
will state some of the ways the ALTERNATIVE project tries to tackle some of these challenges. Finally I will
conclude the paper with some overarching remarks on the subject.

On participatory citizenship
The concept of citizenship is reminiscent of a state-based definition whereby citizenship means the formal
membership of a political unit, prevailingly the nation state. Considered in such lines, citizenship becomes a
concept with discriminating qualities, drawing a line between those who belong and those who do not. Holston
(2008) challenges this definition of citizenship by linking it with the experience of citizens. From this point
of view, citizenship is not only about the legal status of being a member, but also about the individuals sense
of belonging to the society. At the same time citizenship is not only about the right to participate in politics,
but also about the right to participate in other realms of social life. While active and participatory citizenship
is highly valued in the European context and is a rich concept in social theory, as explored through studies
on deliberative democracy (Dryzek, 2010; Elster, 1998), nodal governance (Froestad and Shearing, 2007;
Shearing and Wood, 2003), dominion (Braithwaite and Pettit, 1992), and civil society (Giddens, 1998), the
concept has not been linked substantially to existing everyday practices important to the lives of people. In
this regard, social life spheres where people feel affected personally from crime and conflict offer fertile soil
for understanding.
It remains unclear to what extent and through which interactive processes European citizens are able to
practice their rights and take up their responsibilities when it comes to dealing with crime and conflict. Crime
clearly represents a field of tension between the role of the state in developing top-down crime policies, and
the role of citizens and civil society in practicing bottom-up participatory citizenship (Braithwaite and Parker,
1999). When people rely heavily and exclusively on the state authorities to solve economic and social problems

1
ALTERNATIVE is funded by the European Commission as part of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). For more information on the project
see its website <www.alternativeproject.eu>.
2
ALTERNATIVE has at its core four intensive case studies in different intercultural contexts, which take the form of action research. The conflicts that
characterise the four selected intercultural contexts are: 1. Conflicts between residents with and without migrant background in public/social housing
in Vienna; 2. Conflicts between Roma and non-Roma inhabitants in a small town in Hungary; 3. Conflicts within three multi-ethnic and multicultural
regions in Serbia: between Serbs and Albanians, Serbs and Muslims, and Serbs and Croats; 4. Conflicts at three different sites in Northern Ireland:
between a local community and gangs of youths, between long term residents and recent immigrants, and inter-community sectarian conflicts.

Sistema Penal & Violncia, Porto Alegre, v. 6, n. 1, p. 31-42, jan.-jun. 2014 33

Active justice Pali, B.

and state authorities are perceived as the sole responsible institutions for economic and social well-being,
the result is the passivity of the civil society in which people accept the status of a subordinate or bystander
rather than that of an active citizen. Therefore, it becomes challenging to find ways to stimulate people to play
a more direct role in handling conflicts, to motivate them to become more conscious about social problems
around them, and to encourage them to get engaged in public issues.
Current trends in sociological and political science theory point to a global emphasis on democratic
participation, on the inclusion of citizens in decision-making processes, on the reliance on dialogue in conflict-
resolution, and on the development of social capital. While most of the Western European countries rely on and
value state institutions in general, and more specifically the professionalism and legitimacy of the criminal justice
system, there is at the same time a recent trend in line with global developments, towards citizens inclusion in
public policies and of closing the gap between state and citizens. Shapland (2008, 26) argues that the future
will see the development of new forms of accommodation around communication, partnership, and plural means
of dealing with crime between civil society organisations, criminal justice system, communities and citizens.

Restorative justice as participatory justice

Against this background, restorative justice approaches can be an important building stone and a socio-
educational tool within the wider movement for participatory citizenship in the European context. Restorative
justice is a reflective discourse of justice that emphasises repairing the harm caused by crime, whereby crime is
viewed more comprehensively than simply law breaking. Acknowledging that crime causes (material, social,
psychological, and relational) harm to people and communities, restorative justice insists that justice repair
those harms and that the parties be permitted to participate in that process often in face to face meetings
with the support of a mediator or facilitator. Restorative justice programmes, therefore, enable the victim, the
offender and affected members of the community to be directly involved in responding to the crime.
The demand for active participation of the people, more specifically of those affected by conflict or
crime, has been projected in restorative justice as the vision of a society where alienation can be overcome.
Christies ground-breaking article Conflicts as property (1977) outlined a participatory approach of restorative
justice which would provide a remedy for segregation and the loss of social cohesion and offer opportunities
for norm clarification. Christie argued that the active participation in the handling of conflicts and their
aftermath offers benefits for victim, offender and society, and as such conflicts represent a potential for activity
and participation. The wider political implications of active participation of those concerned is expected to
both promote democratic values and serve as an exercise ground for democratic practice. For example, in
Civic implications of restorative justice theory: Citizen participation and criminal justice policy (2003) Dzur
aimed at the propagation of a wider and more ambitious goal for restorative justice, namely influencing, and
transforming criminal policy and, even more generally, promoting deliberative democracy in society. Similarly,
Braithwaite in his seminal book Restorative justice and responsive regulation (2002) locates restorative justice
approaches within various social formations in globalisation, linking top-down strategies of conflict regulation
to bottom-up initiatives, enhancing thus their capacity to find adequate responses to social conflict.
Restorative justice scholars view RJ practices as small experiments of deliberative democracy
(Braithwaite, 2000; Christie, 1977; Dzur and Olson, 2004). They argue that these micro-experiences of
democracy can teach us to how to become active citizens. In Braithwaites words while disputing over daily
injustices is where we learn to become democratic citizens (1999, 78). Participation can also contribute to
create democratic habits and a greater understanding of democratic possibilities, including the recognition of
the role of civil society on governance (Gordon, 2006).

Sistema Penal & Violncia, Porto Alegre, v. 6, n. 1, p. 31-42, jan.-jun. 2014 34

Active justice Pali, B.

Restorative justice calls for a shift in the essential role of the citizen from service recipient to decision
maker with a stake in what services are provided and how they are delivered, (Bazemore 1998, 334), by giving
the community a forum through which it can exercise its responsibility for its members rather than suffer
crime passively and depend entirely upon the coercive power of the state for protection and order (Schweigert
1999, 33). As such RJ should be pursued as a countermovement that deals with repercussions of the rise of
the modern state and of bureaucratic government (like criminal justice system), especially with a kind of
alienation that is the effect of institutionalisation and bureaucratisation, by creating democratic procedures and
dialogue practices that overcome those effects of criminal law which work in the direction of exclusion and
alienation.
This way of considering participation leads to the understanding that RJ helps to enact and enhance
what Hanah Arendt in The Human condition (1958) calls our place in the world, a position that allows
people to hold the ground that gives them the freedom to become active members of a body politic. Coming
together and acting politically are, according to her, the very essence and the highest expression of our human
condition. If we view restorative processes as being essentially about talking together and acting together, the
essential element of active participation makes restorative justice clearly a manifestation of political action
(Pali and Pelikan, 2010).

Current limitations of the RJ discourse for the participatory vision

Currently, the field of restorative justice in Europe is well described, analysed, and theorised, and its
potentials are recognised by practitioners, scholars and policy makers both at the national and supranational
levels. Nevertheless the field of restorative justice in Europe, both in terms of practice and theory, is confronted
with important limitations. Two main limitations in restorative justice literature are the inadequate and static
use of the concept of community, and the other is the failure of restorative justice to make a concrete link and
analysis between macro and micro domains, remaining thus an individualising discourse of crime and justice.

Against the concept of community in restorative justice

In restorative justice literature the absolute existence of community is assumed, a community
which is depicted as a homogeneous, unified, functioning, harmonious, cohesive, empowered, democratic,
accommodating, inclusive, connected, and consensual whole (Pavlich, 2005). For example, discussion about
offenders reintegration into their communities involves two assumptions: the existence of a pro-social
community into which offenders can be integrated and that people will be able to forgive the offender
(Walgrave, 2002). There is in this ideal and utopic depiction no acknowledgment of diversity and conflict,
hierarchical formations and differential power relations (Pavlich, 2005). Restorative justice assumes that
different perspectives can be reconciled, that community members share values and beliefs, and that we are
similar to our others (Hudson, 2003). Moreover, not all communities share the same access to resources nor
can they feasibly restore victims or reintegrate offenders in the same ways or to the same extent. Communities
are marked by different capacities to mobilise internally on the basis of mutual trust combined with a willingness
to intervene on behalf of the common good, as well as differential relations that connect local institutions to
sources of power and resources in the wider civil society in which they are located (Crawford, 1997; Cunneen
and Hoyle, 2010).
The other myth of a communitarian restorative justice (see Etzioni, 1997) is about the strong emphasis
of social control and reconstituting (rebuilding) community. Essentially, such a view perpetuates the idea that
the more organic a community is the less crime we will see in such communities. This idea is at the same

Sistema Penal & Violncia, Porto Alegre, v. 6, n. 1, p. 31-42, jan.-jun. 2014 35

Active justice Pali, B.

time attractive but also quite nostalgic and unnecessary. There are many cases when the organic community
has supported crime and that conversely there are areas without a hint of organic community, which often
have low crime rates (Young, 2000a). Crawford has argued that restorative justice often fails to acknowledge
the dark side of organic social capital (Crawford, 1997; Crawford, 2010). According to him, strong ties and
social networks do not equate with conformity, on the opposite, strong social ties can produce anti-social
capital, where Crawford draws our attention to organised crime and gang cultures. In other words, deviant
social networks can sustain forms of anti-social behaviour, while transmitting values, skills and knowledge
that constitute criminal capital (Crawford, 2010). This calls, according to Crawford, to attention the need
for a normative dimension of social capital and community values.
The utopic vision of the community as a paradise lost (Walgrave, 2002) is closely related to the concept
of restoration, which is associated with values like wholeness, harmony, peace, healing, health, reparation,
restitution, reintegration. Zehr argues that if crime causes harm, (restorative) justice has to be about healing
and restoration. According to him crime upsets two fundamental assumptions on which we base our lives: our
belief that the world is an orderly, meaningful place, and our belief in personal autonomy. Both assumptions
are essential for wholeness (Zehr, 1990: 24). The main objective of restorative justice is thus to restore
communitys fabric by dealing effectively with victims needs, successfully reintegrating offenders, and
building community strength by requiring communities to deal with the criminal event through restorative
processes (Pavlich, 2005). The discourse of healing and healthy equilibrium presumes the presence of a
communally ordered, healthy, relational state (Pavlich, 2005:36) which leads restorative justice to search
for restoring such order and restoring those ideal conditions, a futile search which limits the way in which
justice can be conceived.
In light of these criticisms, restorative justice has to be mindful, as Pavlich notes, that the appeal to
community is always an ethical matter that demands a continuously open-ended, changing, and future-
directed aspiration of how to be with others, and as such community must be viewed as an on-going and
open-ended activity rather than a finished work to be preserved or restored (Pavlich, 2005. Young, 2000b;
Agamben, 1993). Both according to Pavlich and Crawford, challenging and disrupting established community
order, its assumptions and power relations may be a more fundamental aspect of a progressive restorative
justice programme. In this regard, transforming communities may be a more appropriate albeit much more
challenging goal than restoring communities (Pavlich, 2005; Crawford, 1997, 2010).

Restorative justice has to go social

Another main challenge for restorative justice is the lack of connection between micro and macro
domains. In terms of its practices, appeals to community within restorative justice often fail to address the
relations that connect the individual victim and offender to the wider civil society and political economy. Most
critics have argued that restorative justice only responds to the immediacy of the conflict or harm without
situating it in a broader framework addressing social and structural issues3. Restorative justice in general has
failed to address societal concerns about social justice and has remained thus a limited discourse focusing on
and individualising crime and proposing justice exclusively as an alternative to punishment, without engaging
systemically with the complex political meaning of justice. Being a field that deals mainly with crime, and
using legally defined categories of crime and criminal justice responses, has limited the development of

3
Pavlich, G. (1996). Justice Fragmented: Mediating Community Disputes Under Postmodern Conditions.New York:Routledge; Pavlich, G. (2005).
Governing Paradoxes of Restorative Justice. London: GlassHouse Press; Arrigo, B., Milovanovic, D. and Schehr, R. (2005). The French Connection
in Criminology. New York: State University of New York Press.

Sistema Penal & Violncia, Porto Alegre, v. 6, n. 1, p. 31-42, jan.-jun. 2014 36

Active justice Pali, B.

interdisciplinary scholarship in the field (Aertsen and Lauwaert, 2001). It becomes important thus to theorise
restorative justice in the same line as the theoretical developments taking place in social sciences which relate
more to social and participatory justice than to penal justice.
At the same time, the fact that restorative justice individualises crime and prioritises individual and
community responsibility instead of the state, leads to what has been called governing at a distance. Despite
being an alternative discourse, restorative justice can also be seen as a discourse which is consonant with neo-
liberalism to the extent that it focuses on the active responsibility of individual subjects. Neo-marxist and
governmentality critiques identify current tendencies towards responsibilisation of families, individuals, and
communities, as governing at a distance. These critics argue that the state should heal social wounds before
the community can participate in inclusive policies of crime control (Young, 2000b). By individualizing
crime, thus restorative justice fails to recognize how factors beyond the scope or control of the offender impact
human behaviour, and therefore fails to address the socio-economic roots of crime (Price, 2004). Restorative
justice does not offer a strategy to eliminate the causes of crime, like deprivation and inequality, and thus
individualises criminal activity both in terms of allocating responsibility and recommending remedies. Local
restorative justice initiatives are unlikely to be capable of reversing deep structural inequalities that both divide
societies and foster crime (LaPrairie, 1995; Braithwaite, 1999). Finally, feminist and post-colonial critiques
have reminded us that giving more room to the community in restorative justice might reinforce existing
power structures, where community remains either essentially patriarchal or colonial (Gaarder and Presser,
2008; Cunneen, 2008).
Restorative justices promise about community building and community transformation through
participation of citizens remains limited in the context of participation of communities of care. One of the
main challenges, as Polk (1994) argues in particular in relation to the conferencing model, of the reintegrative
premises of reintegrative shaming theory, or other offenders reintegration approaches in restorative justice
theory, is that the primary focus is on the offender and his/her family, where community representation is
mainly ensured through community of care, and not on institutional interventions, such as work, school,
housing, health, etc. This individualisation of the problem of crime and micro-focus leaves little room for real
re-integration, and is considered to be a major handicap of these models and of restorative justice in general.
This critique goes hand in hand with challenges to the notion of restorative justice as inadequately dealing
with social and structural inequalities that are seen as causal factors in the incidence of crime.
To face up to these arguments, restorative justice must not be limited to being discursive and reflective,
but must forge alliances with the governmental and non-governmental agencies, and create webs of
accountability that lead to concrete social and political actions which fight injustice. As a response to this
problem, some have argued that the cumulative effect oriented to produce social change is a task that restorative
justice cannot achieve alone but rather requires the help of other grass roots-based practices or other social
movements (Braithwaite, 1999; Pranis, 2001). Social change and social justice is an enormous task that needs
the collaboration of different sectors and actors of civil society and state.

The alternatives of the ALTERNATIVE project

In light of the identified limitations and potentials of participatory citizenship in a European context
and restorative justice approaches in bridging the gap between citizenship and justice, one of the objectives of
ALTERNATIVE is to promote the concept of active justice, by exploring and strengthening the relationship
between the concept of active citizenship and justice in Europe, investigated through their intersection in
restorative justice processes by use of action research.

Sistema Penal & Violncia, Porto Alegre, v. 6, n. 1, p. 31-42, jan.-jun. 2014 37

Active justice Pali, B.

It is considered very important in the ALTERNATIVE project to explore and analyse theories and
practices that deal with the strands of societal developments pointing in the direction of active participation of
citizens in the handling of their own conflicts, which link top-down strategies of conflict regulation to bottom-
up initiatives through open participatory processes. This implies on the one hand, understanding the historical,
socio-economic, political and cultural differences in Europe related to the concepts of community, civil society
and active citizenship, especially related to conflict regulation, and on the other hand, identifying the tensions
involved in the field of criminal justice policies, which point to both an enhancement of active citizenship
and an impeding or restricting of such active citizenship through stressing the formal welfare state approach
to crime. At the same time, it is considered important to identify and analyse existing justice mechanisms and
plural meanings of justice as they are enacted and constructed in a few intercultural European settings and
confront these attitudes against the background of concrete actions which increase participation of citizens
through restorative justice approaches, and their influence on such attitudes.
ALTERNATIVE, by targeting the intercultural field, aims to explore the potential of mediation services
and restorative justice models to engage with macro societal conflicts that are not referred to these services by
the criminal justice system, and on the other hand expand the way some of the crimes referred by the criminal
justice system are handled by the mediation services alternatively by fostering alliances with various civil
society organisations, for example intercultural organisations or welfare services.
Our project employs action research methodology, mainly because neither the topic of active
participation, nor a complex understanding of (restorative) justice can be approached solely through conventional
research methods, such as desk research or (public opinion) surveys, but require research settings where people
are invited to participate in and contribute to the process themselves. This type of research is thought to impact
at the same time practice, theory, and society. It is basically a period of inquiry, which describes, interprets
and explains social situations while executing an action aimed at improvement and involvement, characterised
by cooperation between researchers, practitioners, and participants, all of whom are involved in the societal
impact process. The participatory process involves a dynamic approach in which conceptualisation, problem
identification, planning, action and evaluation are interlinked in a cyclical process (Stringer, 1999).
In the project we will argue that the concept and framework of nodal governance as developed by
Shearing and Wood (2003) can serve to support participatory modes of conflict regulation. They contend that
governance today is characterised by a plurality of actors forming more or less interconnected governance
networks, by a plurality of mechanisms and by rapid adaptive change. The concept of nodal governance and
network theories in general have not been used by restorative justice scholars, who continue using the rather
outdated and nostalgic concept of community, especially as influenced by communitarianism.
Furthermore, the community literature in RJ is predominantly Anglo-American and based on the theory
of community justice. In our project, we argue that, contrary to such theory, in the European context,
restorative justice services are linked very closely with the state through the criminal justice system and the
legislation. That is why European countries have always from the beginning attempted to include restorative
justice in a judicial framework, and create models that locate restorative schemes under state-guaranteed
supervision (or in NGO like structures that work in close cooperation with the state), rather than into the
community (Willemsens and Walgrave, 2007). Citizenship thus, instead of community is proposed as a better-
embedded and theoretically richer concept to be used and explored.
In criminal justice, justice is generally equated with penal law, and therefore with the concept of
punishment (Blumstein and Cohen, 1973; Feely and Simon, 1992; Garland, 1985, 1990). Operating very closely
to the borders of criminal justice, it is natural, and somehow unfortunate, that in restorative justice, justice is

Sistema Penal & Violncia, Porto Alegre, v. 6, n. 1, p. 31-42, jan.-jun. 2014 38

Active justice Pali, B.

very often understood in the narrow sense of criminal justice. As a result, restorative justice is conceptualised
and discussed generally against the background mentioned above as an alternative to punishment or even by
some as alternative punishment (see Duff, 2001). Restorative justice in general has failed to address societal
concerns about social justice and democratic or participatory justice and has remained thus a limited discourse
focusing on and individualising crime and proposing justice exclusively as an alternative to punishment,
without engaging systemically with the complex political meaning of justice in current Europe. It becomes
important thus to theorise restorative justice in the same line as the theoretical developments taking place in
social sciences which relate more to social and participatory justice than to penal justice, in order to enlarge and
enrich the concept of justice and to take a radical distance from the conceptualisation of justice as punishment.
We create in ALTERNATIVE interactive settings, which allow for spaces between informal and formal justice,
and between justice mechanisms at the individual and at the societal level (Aertsen, 2001, 2008).
Moreover, the restricted and unclear reference to community related concepts is reflected in the way
restorative justice practices have been studied so far in Europe. Research has mostly focused on VOM (Aertsen
et al., 2004; Vanfraechem et al., 2010) and, to a lesser extent, on conferencing (Zinsstag et al., 2011; Zinsstag
and Vanfraechem, 2012), while peace making circles, social mediation and other alternative models of conflict
regulation which seem to offer great potential when dealing with crimes and conflicts that affect the broader
society, such as conflicts in current culturally, ethnically, religiously and structurally pluralistic societies,
have been largely ignored. If restorative justice is to become an active tool to reinvent social capital and
local, practical knowledge in societies, other broader models and creative ways of conceiving society should
be explored (CEPEJ, 2007; Pali and Pelikan, 2010). Restorative justice has to promote broader models of
restorative justice which are able to address social and systemic crimes and conflicts, and which will help
the theory and practice of RJ to move beyond the individualisation of crime and its remedies, as we do in the
ALTERNATIVE project.

Conclusions
One of the main challenges of the restorative justice discourse is that community representation is
mainly ensured through community of care, and not on institutional interventions, such as work, school,
housing, health systems, etc, interventions which reflect the problem of crime back to macro social structures.
By individualizing (or at most familializing) the problem of crime, restorative justice is unable to deal
with social and structural inequalities. The link between the individual and the community impact remains
unclear. Likewise, the link between state and community remains nave in restorative justice, whereby, as
Pavlich (2005) notes, the community of restorative justice is essentially constituted by the state, which
design, creates, funds, and staffs services. For writers like Melucci, a central prerequisite for the redefinition
of democracy by new social movements is the creation and maintenance of public spaces independent of the
institutions of government, the party system, and the state structures (Melucci, 1989). Restorative justice has
always been in practice a movement dependent on the state, as its activity has been defined in a close relation
to the criminal justice system, and legislation, especially in continental Europe. This paradoxical relation to
both state and community makes restorative justice a potentially powerful discourse but at the same time
dangerously uncritical of both.
Restorative justice must come to terms with critical reflections on two grounds. First, it has to give up
the nave use of community. While we do not oppose the utopic use of the term, we insist on imbuing it
with its due complexity. In other words there is no ideal and static community to restore, but there are very
complex and dynamic social aggregates with different power, hierarchical structures, and resources, that relate

Sistema Penal & Violncia, Porto Alegre, v. 6, n. 1, p. 31-42, jan.-jun. 2014 39

Active justice Pali, B.

differentially to macro structures like economy, politics, to be transformed. It is useful to remember the reminder
of Pavlich that community is always an ethical matter that demands a continuously open-ended, changing,
and future-directed aspiration of how to be with others (2005). This coming community (Agamben, 1993)
is thus an on-going activity rather than a finished work to be preserved and restored, an activity which must
constantly disrupt and transform established community order, its assumptions and power relations.
Secondly, while restorative justice cannot be a panacea for social justice, it nevertheless should not
fall into the same trap it aims to avoid, by isolating and individualizing crime and responses to it. In other
words, crime should be considered more than harm, but rather a social problem, closely related to other social
conditions, for which not only one individual but the whole society is responsible. Restorative practices such
as conferencing or circles are on the right track here, because they have the potential to work on structural
problems (Gaarder and Presser, 2008; Braithwaite, 2000). Processes that allow community members to discuss
and reflect upon possible connections between crime and social conditions raise awareness and may begin
the information of strategies to address the problem (Pranis, 2001). Nevertheless, restorative justice must not
only be limited to being discursive and reflective, but must forge alliances with the governmental and non-
governmental agencies, and create webs of accountability that lead to concrete social and political actions
which fight injustices of all kinds.

References
Aertsen, I. (2001). Slachtoffer-daderbemiddeling: een onderzoek naar de ontwikkeling van een herstelgerichte strafrechtsbedeling.
Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Aertsen, I. (2008). Racak, Mahane Yehuda and Nyabyondo: restorative justice between the formal and the informal. In: Aertsen I.,
Arsovska J., Rohne H., Valias M. and Vanspauwen K. (Eds.). Restoring justice after large-scale violent conflicts. Kosovo, DR Congo
and the Israeli-Palestinian case (p. 413-443). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Aertsen, I. and Lauwaert, K. (2001). Criminologie als bemiddeling. In: Dupont, L. and Hutsebaut, F. (Eds.). Herstelrecht tussen
toekomst en verleden. Liber amicorum Tony Peters (p. 33-55). Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Aertsen, I., Mackay, R., Pelikan, C., Willemsens, J. and Wright, M. (2004). Rebuilding Community Connections mediation and
restorative justice in Europe. Strassbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Agamben, G. (1993). The Coming Community. U of Minnesota Press.
Arendt, H. (1998). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blumstein, A. and Jacqueline, C. (1973). A Theory of the Stability of Punishment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 64,
p. 198-206.
Braithwaite, J. (1994). Thinking Harder about Democratising Social Control. In: Alder, C. and Wundersitz, J. (Eds.). Family Conferencing
and Juvenile Justice: The Way Forward or Misplaced Optimism? Canberra, AUS: Australian Institute of Criminology, p. 199-216.
Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. Crime and Justice, 25, 1-128.
Braithwaite, J. (2000). Repentance rituals and restorative justice. Journal of Political Philosophy, 8, 115-31.
Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Braithwaite, J. and Parker, C. (1999). Restorative justice is republican justice. In: Bazemore, G. and Walgrave, L. (Eds.), Restorative
justice for juveniles: Repairing the harm by youth crime (p. 103-126). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.
Braithwaite, J. and Pettit, Ph. (1992). Not just deserts. A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice. Oxford: Clarendon.
CEPEJ (European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice). (2007). Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing
recommendation concerning mediation in penal matters. Strassbourg: Council of Europe.
Christie, N. (1977). Conflicts as property. British Journal of Criminology, 17(1), 1-15.
Crawford, A. (1997). The Local Governance of Crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sistema Penal & Violncia, Porto Alegre, v. 6, n. 1, p. 31-42, jan.-jun. 2014 40

Active justice Pali, B.

Crawford, A. (2010). Conceptual Links and Policy Challenges. In: Restorative Justice and Crime Prevention. Prepared by the Italian
Ministry of Justice, European Forum for Restorative Justice, and Psychoanalytic Institute for Social Research (p. 1-22). Downloadable
from: <www.euforumrj.org>.
Cunneen, C. (2010). Debating restorative justice. Oxford; Portland, Or.: Hart.
Cunneen, Chris (2008). Understanding restorative justice through the lens of critical criminology. In: The Critical Criminology
Companion (p. 290-302). Sydney, NSW, Australia: Hawkins Press.
Cunnen C. and Hoyle C. (2010). Debating Restorative Justice. Oxford: Hart publishing.
Dryzek, J. (2010). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duff, A. (2001). Punishment, communication, and community. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dzur, A. and Olson, S. (2004) The value of community participation in restorative justice. Journal of Social Philosophy, 35(1), 91-107.
Dzur, A.W. (2003). Civic Implications of Restorative Justice Theory: Citizen Participation and Criminal Justice Policy. Policy Sciences,
36, 279-306.
Elliott, D. E. and Gordon, R. R. M. (2005). New Directions in Restorative Justice: Issues, Practice, Evaluation. Willan Pub.
Elster, J. (Ed.) (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Etzioni A (1997). The New Golden Rule. London: profile books.
Feeley M. M. and Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology,
30(4), 449-474.
Froestad. J. and Shearing, C. (2007). Beyond restorative justice Zwelethemba, a future focused model using local capacity conflict
resolution. In: Mackay, R., Bosnjak, M., Deklerck, J., Pelikan. C., van Stokkom, B. and Wright, M. (Eds.). Images of Restorative
Justice Theory (p. 5-35). Frankfurt/Main: Verlag fr Polizeiwissenschaft.
Gaarder E and Presser L (2008) A feminist vision of justice? The problems and possibilities of restorative justice for girls and women.
In: Sullivan, D. and Tifft, L. (Eds.). Handbook of Restorative Justice (p. 483-494). London: Routledge.
Garland, D. (1985). Punishment and welfare: a history of penal strategies. Gower.
Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory. Clarendon Press.
Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way. The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gordon, D. (2006). Public-empowering justice. Arguments from effectiveness, legitimacy and democracy, and the South African case.
Punishment and Society, 9(1): 49-66.
Holston, J. (2008). Insurgent citizenship: Disjunctions of democracy and modernity in Brazil. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Hudson, B. (2003). Restorative justice: the challenge of sexual and racial violence. In: Johnstone, G. A Restorative Justice Reader:
Texts, Sources, Context (p. 438-450). Cullompton: Willan.
Karp, D. R. (1998). Community Justice: An Emerging Field. Rowman & Littlefield.
LaPrairie, C. (1995). Community Justice or Just Communities? Aboriginal Communities in Search of Justice. Canadian Journal of
Criminology, 37, 521-45.
Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society. Hutchinson Radius.
Pali, B. and Pelikan, C. (2010). Building social support for restorative justice: Media, civil society, and citizens. Leuven: European
Forum for Restorative Justice.
Pavlich, G. (2005). Governing Paradoxes of Restorative Justice. London: Glasshouse press.
Polk, K. (1994) Family conferencing: theoretical and evaluative concerns. In: Alder, C. and Wundersitz, J. (Eds.). Family Conferencing
and Juvenile Justice: The Way Forward or Misplaced Optimism. Canberra, Australia: Institute of Criminology.
Pranis, K. (2001). Restorative justice, social justice and the empowerment of marginalized populations. In: Bazemore, G. and Schiff, M.
(Eds). Restorative Community Justice: Repairing the Harm and Transforming Communities (p. 127-149). Cincinnati: Anderson publishing.
Price, B. (2004). Does restorative justice challenge systematic injustices? In: Zehr, H. and Toews, B. (Eds.). Critical Issues in Restorative
Justice. Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.

Sistema Penal & Violncia, Porto Alegre, v. 6, n. 1, p. 31-42, jan.-jun. 2014 41

Active justice Pali, B.

Schweigert, F. J. (1999). Moral education in victim offender conferencing. Criminal Justice Ethics, 18(2), 29-40.
Shapland, J. (Ed.) (2008). Justice, community, and civil society: A contested terrain. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Shearing, C. and Wood, J. (2003). Governing Security for Common Goods. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 31(3),
205-225.
Shearing, C. and Wood, J. (2003). Nodal governance, democracy, and the new denizens. Journal of Law and Society, 30, 400-419.
Stirling, R. (2000). Punishment, Communication, and Community. Oxford University Press.
Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action Research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
UN Office on Drugs and Crime. (2006). Handbook of Restorative Justice Programmes. Vienna: UNODC.
Vanfraechem, I. (2007). Community, society and state in restorative justice: an exploration. In: Mackay, R., Bosnjak, M., Deklerck,
J., Pelikan, C., van Stokkom, B. and Wright, M. (Eds.). Images of Restorative Justice Theory (p. 73-91). Frankfurt, Germany: Verlag
fur Polizeiwissenschaft.
Vanfraechem, I. (2003). Implementing Family Group Conferences in a Legalistic System. The example of Belgium. In: Walgrave, L.
(Ed.). Repositioning Restorative Justice. Restorative Justice, Criminal Justice and Social Context (p. 313-327). Cullompton: Willan
Publishing.
Vanfraechem, I. (2007). Community, society and state in restorative justice: some reflections. In: Mackay, R., Bosjnak, M., Deklerck,
J., Pelikan, C., van Stokkom, B. and Wright, M. (Eds.). Images of Restorative Justice Theory (p. 73-91). Frankfurt am Main: Verlag
fur Polizei und Wissenschaft.
Vanfraechem, I., Aertsen, I. and Willemsens, J. (Eds.) (2010). Restorative Justice Realities. Empirical research in a European context.
The Netherlands: Eleven International Publishers.
von Hirsch, A. (1976). Doing justice: The choice of punishments. Report of the Committee for the Study of Incarceration. New York:
Hill & Wang.
von Hirsch, A. (2003). Restorative justice and criminal justice: competing or reconcilable paradigms? Hart.
Walgrave, L. (Ed.). (2002). Restorative Justice and the Law. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Willemsens, J. and Walgrave, L. (2007). Regional Review: Europe. In: Johnstone, G. and Van Ness, D. Handbook of Restorative
Justice (p. 468-533).
Young, J. (2000). The Maintenance of Order among Lightly Engaged Strangers.
Young, R. (2000). Integrating a multi-victim perspective into criminal justice through restorative justice conferences. In: Crawford,
A. and Goodey, J. (Eds.). Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice: International Debates (p. 227-251). Ashgate,
Dartmouth: Aldershot.
Zehr, H. (1990). Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Herald Press.
Zinsstag, E. and Vanfraechem, I. (Eds.). (2012). Conferencing and Restorative Justice: International Practices and Perspectives.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zinsstag, E., Teunkens, M. and Pali, B. (2011). Conferencing: a way forward for restorative justice in Europe. Leuven: European
Forum for Restorative Justice.

Recebido em: 17 maro 2014

Aceito em: 16 maio 2014

Sistema Penal & Violncia, Porto Alegre, v. 6, n. 1, p. 31-42, jan.-jun. 2014 42